On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 17.02.2010 14:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> That would address vendor namespaces, but not registration of rel
>> values
>> you find arleady in active use by third parties.
>
> Yes, that's what I just said :-).
The latter is more what I am concerned about, since people make up rel
values all the time without asking anyone's permission.
>
>>> That's not entirely true, for instance the requirements for
>>> provisional URI schemes are:
>>>
>>> 3. Guidelines for Provisional URI Scheme Registration
>>>
>>>
>>> While the guidelines in Section 2 are REQUIRED for permanent
>>> registration, they are RECOMMENDED for provisional registration. For
>>> a provisional registration, the following are REQUIRED:
>>
>> RECOMMENDED is a lower level of requirement than REQUIRED (a
>> SHOULD, not
>> a MUST). I have no problem with a universal SHOULD-level requirement.
>> It's just not clear to me that when you can't meet it, the rel value
>> should remain completely unregistered.
>
> I'm aware of that. I was just trying to point out that "provisional"
> doesn't mean "anything goes".
No one said it did.
>
>>> o The scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of Section 2.8.
>>> o There is not already an entry with the same URI scheme name. (In
>>> the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>>> the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an
>>> existing entry to note the separate use.)
>>> o Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>>> registration is included. Previously unregistered URI schemes
>>> discovered in use may be registered by third parties on behalf of
>>> those who created the URI scheme; in this case, both the
>>> registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified.
>>
>> This bullet is exactly the kind of thing I think ought to be allowed,
>> but effectively is not (unless you are able to reverse engineer a
>> spec
>> for the rel value).
>
> I don't see how this is disallowed for "rel". Write a spec, and
> request registration. What you can't do is specify somebody else as
> relation creator without their agreement.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave values in common use
completely undocumented in the registry. It means that a good
samaritan who finds someone else's unregistered header cannot ensure
that it is documented without writing a full specification that will
survive formal review.
Like I said, I'm not going to object on this basis, I was just curious
to hear from Mark why there is not any form of provisional or
experimental registration.
Regards,
Maciej